No. 1/2012
Derviş İbrahim Paşa:
Views on a Late 19th-Century
Ottoman Military Commander
Christoph Herzog
Barbara Henning
No. 1, June 2012
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.
Occasional Papers in Ottoman Biographies is published by OPUS, Otto-FriedrichUniversität Bamberg.
ISSN:
2194-9395
Edited by:
Christoph Herzog, University of Bamberg
Editorial Board:
Nilüfer Hatemi, Yeditepe University
Raoul Motika, Orient-Institut Istanbul
Oktay Özel, Bilkent University
Akşin Somel, Sabancı University
Occasional Papers in Ottoman Biographies is a scholarly, open-access series
publishing articles of varying length on biographical and prosopographical research
on personalities whose lives were closely connected with the Ottoman cultural or
political space.
Weblink for this document:
http://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-bamberg/solrsearch/index/search/searchtype/series/id/
Weblink for Occasional Papers in Ottoman Biographies:
http://www.ottomanbiographies.org
Mail: Chair of Turkish Studies, Otto-Friedrich University Bamberg, An der
Universität 11, 96047 Bamberg
Email: [email protected]
Derviş İbrahim Paşa:
Views on a Late 19th-Century
Ooman Military Commander
Christoph Herzog
Barbara Henning
Derviş İbrahim Paşa was one of the most important military commanders of the 19th-century
Ooman Empire. He received international aention first for his role during the Russo-Ooman
war of 1877/78, where he commanded the garrison of Batum, and then as head of Sultan Abdülhamid’s 1881/82 mission to Egypt aempting to forestall the loss of the province. Although
he has been treated in several encyclopedias and biographical compilations,¹ Derviş Paşa has
not, to the best of our knowledge, been examined in a longer biographical essay.² is contribution aims to serve as a starting point for a beer understanding of his biography. In what
follows we establish the basic chronology of Derviş Paşa’s career and review narratives regarding his personality and character. In the process, we establish the necessity of identifying and
critically examining the use of clichés in contemporary European sources.
¹Cf. Orhan M. Bayrak, İstanbul’da Gömülü Meşhur Adamları (Istanbul: Türkiye Anıtlar Derneği, 1979); Osman
Nuri Ergin, İstanbul Şehreminleri (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri Daire Başkanlığı, 1996);
İbrahim Gövsa, Türk Meşhurları Ansiklopedisi. Edebiyaa, Sanaa, İlimde, Harpte, Politikada ve Her Sahada
Şöhret Kazanmış Olan Türklerin Hayatları, Eserleri (Istanbul: Yedigün Neşriyatı, n.d), 103; Mehmed Süreyya,
Sicill-i Osmani yahud Tezkere-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye, 4 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i amire, 1308-1311), 4:855 [henceforth SO] and M. C. Şihabein Tekindağ, “Derviş Paşa,“ in İslam Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi,
1963), 3: 552. An abridged version of Tekindağ’s article was also published in the Encyclopaedia of Islam:
“Dervish Pasha,“ in Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman; . Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel and
W.P. Heinrichs, 2nd ed. (Leiden etc.: Brill, 1969), 3: 992.
²A colorful description of his personal character and several interesting anecdotes can be found in Ziya Şakır,
Yarım Asır Evvel Bizi İdare Edenler, 2 vols. (Istanbul: Muallim Fuat Gücüyener, Anadolu Türk Kitap Deposu,
1943), 1:187-204.
1
Chronology and Career
Derviş Paşa was born in 1811 or 1812³ in Lofça (today Lovech in northern Bulgaria)4 as the
son of a local notable named Genç İbrahim Ağa. As a young man he came to Istanbul where
he joined the Ooman army. In 1252 (beg. 18 April 1836) he was accorded the rank of major
(binbaşı). Even though he lacked formal military education, his quick-wiedness allowed him
to advance rapidly through the ranks.⁴ He also enjoyed the protection of Ömer Lütfi Paşa,
serving in his retinue in the 1852/53 campaign in Montenegro.⁵ Derviş Paşa’s younger brother,
Fehim Paşa, served as a kaimmakam and was accorded the rank of mirimiran,⁶ but seems to
have died in 1267 already (beg. 6 November 1850) while kaimmakam of İzvornik (Zvornik,
Bosnia).⁷
Around 1 May 1862 Derviş Paşa was appointed commander of the Ooman division in Herzegovina⁸ and was accorded the rank of a field marshal (müşir).⁹ On the suggestion of Ömer
Lütfi Paşa he was at the same time decorated with the Nişan-i Osmani of the second rank.¹⁰
In the following year he received the same order of the first rank.¹¹ In 1862 Derviş Paşa took
part in the war against Montenegro. According to the vivid description of this campaign¹²
by Josef Koetschet (1830-1898), Ömer Lütfi’s private physician and later chief Ooman physician and mektubcu in Sarajevo, the relationship between Derviş Paşa and Ömer Lütfi had by
then become quite tense. Although Ömer Lütfi at one point remarked that Derviş deserved to
be hanged,¹³ he nevertheless relied heavily on him during military operations in Montenegro,
where Derviş commanded about 12,000 men.¹⁴ By the summer of 1862, the disagreement between the two commanders on strategic issues had reached such proportions that it required
³According to his obituary in Malumat 42 (13 Haziran 1312 / 14 Muharrem 1314), 932, he was 84 years of age when
he died in June 1896. e year 1812 is also given by Şihabein Tekindağ, in his article in İslam Ansiklopedisi,
3:552. According to SO, 4:855, Derviş was “close to ninety” (doksana karib) when he died. Other dates given
for his birth are 1817 (Gövsa, Bayrak, Ergin) and 1819 (Service historique de l’armée de terre [SHAT]: 7N 1628,
aachés militaires, Turquie 1882-1884, annexe au no. 32 [26 August 1884], Caffarel).
⁴Malumat 42: 932. See also SO, 4:855 where he is described as “fatîn”.
⁵Caffarel, annexe au No. 32 (26 August 1884).
⁶Cf. SO, 4: 30f; Lütfi, Ahmed, Tarih-i Lütfi. 8 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, [1-4], Mahmud Bey [5-7], Sabah
[8], 1290-1328), 9: 47.
⁷Tarih-i Lütfi, 9: 60. According to SO, 4:31, he died sometime aer 1876. In the catalog of the Başbakanlık Osmanlı
Arşivi there is an irade (İ.DH 227/13619) dated 5 Ra 1267 concerning “İzvornik Kaymakamı Fehim Paşa’nın
biraderi Şakir Bey’e kapıcıbaşılık rütbesi tevcihi.” is would mean that yet another of Derviş Paşa’s brothers
served in the Ooman bureaucracy.
⁸Cf. Emine Altunay Şam, “Derviş Paşa’nın Bosna-Hersek Vilayetin’de Yapılan Askeri Düzenlemeye İlişkin
Babıâlî’ye Sunduğu Layiha,” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları 150 (Haziran 2004), 49-60.
⁹Dr. K., Erinnerungen aus dem Leben des Serdar Ekrem Ömer Pascha (Michael Laas) (Sarajevo: Spindler &
Löschner, 1885), 183. According to SO, 4: 854 this would have been on 28 L 1278 (28 April 1862). Tarih-i
Lütfi, 10:65 also cites the year 1278. erefore the year [12]77 given in the obituary in Malumat, no. 42 must be
erroneous.
¹⁰Cf. Caffarel for a list of the Ooman and foreign decorations Derviş had received by 1884.
¹¹Tarih-i Lütfi, 10:65 a. 93.
¹²Dr. K., Erinnerungen, 183-235.
¹³Ibid., 157.
¹⁴Ibid., 187.
2
arbitration by the Porte. e maer was decided in favor of Ömer Lütfi Paşa.¹⁵ Ömer Lütfi had
had the idea that the two armies under the command of Derviş Paşa and Abdülkerim Nadir
Paşa should march separately and meet near Danilovgrad. Derviş Paşa managed the difficult
task of making his way from Nikšić over the mountains into the Zeta valley in order to join the
Ooman forces coming from İşkodra (Shkodër) – a considerable military success. However,
apparently based on information provided by Derviş Paşa – who, aer more successful operations, proclaimed the fall of the Montenegrin capital Cetinje imminent – on 14 July 1862, Ömer
Paşa sent a telegram to the Porte announcing the victory of the imperial soldiers. e Ooman
army, the telegram stated, would take a short rest before continuing on to Cetinje, which was
thought to be only a four hours’ march away.¹⁶ In fact, the difficulties of the terrain and the
tenacity of the Montenegrin resistance had been grossly underestimated, and the march on
Cetinje had to be canceled. is caused considerable disappointment in the Ooman capital
and further alienation between Ömer Lütfi and Derviş Paşa.¹⁷
On 4 August 1863 (1280 S 18) Derviş İbrahim Paşa replaced Hüseyin Hüsnü Paşa as vali in
Yanya (Ioannina). In February 1864, he became commander of the 4th army in Erzincan.¹⁸ As
holder of that position, in the summer of 1865, Derviş Paşa was sent to lead a military force
together with Ahmed Cevdet to pacify the Çukurova region and the surrounding mountains of
the Kozan district in Cilicia. e aims of the so-called “reforming force” (Fırka-yi Islahiyye) included bringing the area under direct government control, introducing conscription and effective taxation, breaking the power of the local ayan, and sedentarizing nomadic tribes.¹⁹ Derviş
Paşa received an additional 10,000 Kuruş as payment for this assignment, Ahmed Cevdet an
extra 30,000 Kuruş.²⁰ While Derviş Paşa was primarily responsible for the military side of the
operation, Cevdet was to supervise the administrative reforms.²¹ Leaving their cholera-stricken
troops behind, both men returned to Istanbul in November 1865 without having fully finished
their tasks.²²
In January 1866, with the outbreak of disturbances in Mount Lebanon,²³ Derviş was sent to
Syria to command the 5th army. In October of the following year we find him vali in Diyarbakır.
¹⁵Ibid., 199. at the two commanders were in conflict is also suggested by Ahmed Cevdet, Tezâkir. Ed. Cavid
Baysun (Ankara: TTK, 1991) [tezkire no. 16], 129. Cevdet suggests that Ömer Paşa started to dislike Derviş Paşa
because the laer had shown respect for the deposed commander of the 3rd army, Çerkes İsmail Paşa, whom
Ömer Lütfi resented because he was an able military leader and a brave soldier: “İsmâil Paşa gayet şecîʿ ve
bahâdır ve sahîhen bir ordu kumandasına muktedir bir zât olup Serdâr-ı ekrem öteden beri anı istirkab eylerdi.
Haâ Derviş Paşa kendi terbiyetkerdesi olduğu hâlde İsmâil Paşa ile hoş geçindiğine mebnî bir vakien beri
Derviş Paşa’yı dahi sevmez oldu.”
¹⁶Cevdet, Tezâkir [tezkire no. 19], 2: 252.
¹⁷Dr. K., Erinnerungen, 217-219 and Cevdet, Tezâkir [tezkire no. 19], 2: 253f.
¹⁸BOA: A.MKT.MHM 293/1 (1280 N 11); Sinan Kuneralp, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali (1839–1922) (Istanbul:
Isis, 1999), 16.
¹⁹On this operation cf. Akif Bilge Çelik, “Fırka-yi Islâhiye” Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Kahraman Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi,
2008).
²⁰Çelik, “Fırka-yi Islâhiye,” 89.
²¹Ibid., 91.
²²Ahmed Cevdet, Maʿrûzât. Ed. Yusuf Halaçoğlu (Istanbul: Çağrı, 1980), 171-173.
²³e situation in Mount Lebanon is given as the reason for his transfer to Syria by Cevdet, Maʿrûzât, 177, while in
Cevdet, Tezâkir [tezkire no. 31], 3: 201, Cevdet writes that the disturbances there had only served as a pretext.
In any case, Derviş was replaced by Kurt İsmail Paşa as commander of the Fırka-yi Islahiyye.
3
If we trust the anecdote of his protégé Aşçı Dede İbrahim, we can conclude that Derviş was
not happy there: when Namık Paşa stopped in Diyarbakır on his way from Baghdad, where he
had been vali, to Istanbul, where he was to serve as serasker, Namık promised to make Derviş
commander of the 4th army upon reaching the capital.²⁴ Obviously the influential Namık Paşa
kept his word, for in April 1868 Derviş took over the command of that army for the second time.
It appears that when Namık Paşa was replaced by Hüseyin Avni Paşa as serasker in January
1869, however, Derviş fell with him. For three years he was vali in Aleppo until becoming
commander of the 3rd army in January 1872. Interestingly, this was during Mahmud Nedim
Paşa’s first term in the grand vizierate (8 September 1871 – 30 July 1872). As is well known,
Mahmud Nedim was at the head of the conservative group of statesmen supporting Abdülaziz
and advocating a critical reassessment of the Tanzimat reforms. As will be argued in more
detail below, it is likely that Derviş İbrahim Paşa was part of or at least close to this faction
of the Ooman bureaucracy. Derviş was deposed from the command of the 3rd army in June
1873. It may well be more than mere coincidence that this happened aer Hüseyin Avni Paşa’s
reappointment as serasker, as the laer was a declared enemy of Derviş Paşa.²⁵
In February 1874, Derviş Paşa became vali of Bosna. It was during his term of office that the
Bosnian insurrection of 1875 broke out. Late that same summer, he again became commander
of the 3rd army, and was in addition appointed vali of Manastır.²⁶ During the second grand
vizierate of Mahmud Nedim Paşa (26 August 1875 – 11 May 1876), Derviş was summoned to
the capital, where he first became commander of the hassa ordusu, then serasker, then bahriye
nazırı and finally serasker again. In May 1876 when Mütercim Mehmed Rüşdü was appointed
Grand Vizier, Derviş Paşa was removed from the capital to take over both the command of
the 3rd army and the valilik in Manastır.²⁷ It is clear that Derviş was not among the conspirators who carried out the deposition of Sultan Abdülaziz on 30 May 1876. On the contrary, he
seems to have belonged to the faction of pro-Abdülaziz pashas. ere is some evidence that
the conspirators feared he would thwart their plan – which is probably why he was appointed
to Manastır a few days before the coup.²⁸
During the war of 1877/78 against Tsarist Russia, Derviş Paşa was dispatched to the Caucasian
front where he served as commander of the Batum army. While Caffarel dismisses his defense
of Batum against Russian troops as a complete failure, other sources are more favorable in their
judgement, going so far as to proclaim him the only Ooman general undefeated in that war.²⁹
²⁴Aşçı İbrahim Dede, Çok Yönlü Bir Sufinin Gözüyle Son Dönem Osmanlı Hayatı. Aşçı Dede’nin Hatıraları. Ed.
Mustafa Koç & Eyyüp Tanrıverdi. 4 vols. (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2006), 1595: “Namık Paşa merhum Seraskerlikle
Bağdat’tan İstanbul’a gider iken Diyarbakır’da Derviş Paşa hazretlerine söz vermiş ki İstanbul’a giiğim anda
sizi Dördüncü Orduya müşir ederim. Binaenaleyh öyle oldu.”
²⁵e enmity between the two men is mentioned both in Cevdet, Tezâkir, 4 [tezkire no. 40], 147 and Aşçı Dede,
Hatıraları, 526.
²⁶He was appointed on 23 August 1875 and remained in this office only one month and seven days; cf. Bernard
Lory, La ville balkanissime Bitola 1800-1918 (Istanbul: Isis, 2011), 820.
²⁷Appointed 8 June 1876; Lory, La ville balkanissime, 821.
²⁸Cf. Cevdet, Maʿrûzât, 229; Mahmud Celaleddin, Mirat-i Hakikat, 3 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i osmaniyye, 13261327), 1: 106 and BOA: İ.DH 723/50426, dated 02 Ca 1293, corresponding to 26 May 1876.
²⁹EI², Tekindağ; William A.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, Caucasian Balefields. A History of the Wars on the TurcoCaucasian Border 1828-1921 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 215, referring to Tekindağ.
4
Aer 1878, Derviş İbrahim continued his military career as commander of the 4th army in Erzincan, and then returned to Istanbul where he served first as a member of the general staff and
later as commander of the 1st army. In the early 1880s, he was entrusted with two sensitive
diplomatic missions. e first, in 1880, led him to Albania, where he succeeded in the peaceful
selement of the border conflict between Montenegro and Albania. From 1880 to 1882 he was
governor of Selanik before being sent to Egypt by the Sultan during the crisis of 1881/82. e
mission aimed at inviting Urabi to Istanbul in order to forestall foreign intervention and keep
the khedive under Ooman control. Derviş Paşa arrived in Egypt on 7 June 1882. However, his
conciliatory politics ultimately failed; Urabi proved uncompromising and the British finally decided on military intervention.³⁰ In the later days of the Hamidian regime, Derviş Paşa enjoyed
the status of a yaver-i ekrem and senior advisor to the Sultan and bore the title of extraordinary
commander of Rumelia (Rumeli-yi şahane fevkalade kumandanı). He died of tuberculosis on 10
Muharrem 1314 (21 June 1896)³¹ and was buried in the türbe of Sultan Mahmud II.
On the Characterization of Derviş Paşa by the French Military Aaché
Ernest Caffarel
e archives of the French Service National de la Défense (SND) in Vincennes/Paris contain,
among a variety of other documents, the regular reports sent by French military aachés to
the Foreign Ministry in Paris. From 1884 to 1888, Ernest Caffarel held the post of the French
military aaché to the Ooman Empire.³² Based in Istanbul, he was to inform his superiors on
the state of the Ooman army, trace the movement of troops and keep an eye on the military
reform efforts undertaken by the Ooman government.
During his first year in office, Caffarel assembled biographical information on several of the
more prominent Ooman military figures of his day. He chose to report on Ahmed Muhtar
Paşa, Derviş İbrahim Paşa, Edhem Paşa, Mehmed İzzet Paşa and Hüseyin Hüsnü Paşa. All
these pashas were associated with the commission set up by Abdülhamid in 1879 to facilitate
the reorganization and modernization of the Ooman army. At the time of Caffarel’s writing,
this commission, presided over by Ahmed Muhtar Paşa, was in the process of evaluating the
suggestions for military reform made by the German military mission under lieutenant general
Oo Kähler (1830-1885).³³ Aware that the activities of the German military mission meant a
potential loss of influence on the part of the French, Caffarel and his government had every
reason to be interested in the men involved in the commission.
e five reports wrien by Caffarel and sent to Paris are today preserved in the archive of the
³⁰Cf. Selim Deringil, “e Ooman Response to the Egyptian Crisis of 1881-82,” Middle Eastern Studies 24.1 (Jan.
1988), 3-24.
³¹Aşçı İbrahim Dede, Hatıraları, 905. e year 1310 given in SO, 4: 854f is erroneous, while the day and month
correspond to Aşçı Dede’s.
³²Paul Dumont, “Les Provinces arabes de l’empire Ooman sous le règne d’Abdulhamid II vues par les aachés
militaires français,“ in La vie économique des provinces arabes et leurs sources documentaires à l’époque oomane
(Paris: CNRS, 1986), 177-202.
³³Jehuda L. Wallach, Anatomie einer Militärhilfe (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1976).
5
SND;³⁴ each contains between 500 and 1700 words. In addition to chronological and factual information, Caffarel’s reports occasionally include remarks on the financial circumstances and
personal situations of the various pashas. He also assesses the public perception of the pashas
in question. How did Caffarel obtain his information, and how reliable is it? Military aachés
in the Ooman Empire gathered information in a number of different ways, including scanning the local press and official government publications or traveling through the provinces.
Above all, though, they relied on the intelligence provided by a network of personal contacts
in government offices and in the military.³⁵ Sometimes the military aachés’ sources of information appear to have been rather trivial: Caffarel adorned four of his five reports with
portrait photographs sold publicly in Istanbul at the time.³⁶ As no portrait of Hüseyin Hüsnü
Paşa was available in the markets, none was included. at these sources of information and
the resulting military aachés’ reports were by no means immune to being both ill-informed
and biased is underlined in the memoirs of Baron von Giesl, himself a former Austrian military
aaché in the Ooman Empire in the late 19th century.³⁷ Yet despite many inaccuracies and
errors, Caffarel’s reports still contain some valuable information. One should, however, take
the time to put some of his cliché-ridden generalizations to the test.
Caffarel describes Derviş İbrahim as a typical example of the traditional Turkish pasha – cruel,
fanatic, treacherous and rapacious but at the same time respected and even loved by his soldiers. According to Caffarel, there was general agreement that he was an “old fox” (vieux
renard). Much in the tone of Caffarel’s characterization of Derviş Paşa is irritating for historians striving to overcome and to look past the biased and anti-Turkish imagery that dominates
European accounts of the late Ooman Empire. Nevertheless, if we read the aributes “fanatic” and “rapacious” not as offensive insults but as codes describing political aitudes and
social conduct, we find that these descriptions constitute judgmental interpretations of certain
established facts.
e term “fanatic” was a denunciatory description used by many Europeans for Ooman dignitaries who defended an ideology and political practice that opposed European intervention and
the political participation of non-Muslim Oomans, insisting on the supremacy of Muslims as
the empire’s ruling group (millet-i hakime). Far from existing on a purely personal level, these
ideas possessed social and institutional bases. One of them was the Khalidiyya-Mujaddidiyya
order, which was founded by Shaykh Khālid (1776-1827) and existed throughout the Ooman
Empire.³⁸ As a branch of the Naqshbandiyya, the order was known not only for its affinity to
³⁴Cf. SHAT, série 7N 1628, Aachés Militaires, Turquie, 1882-1884, annexes au N°31, 19.08.1884 for Ahmed Muhtar
Paşa and Edhem Paşa; annexe au N°32, 26.08.1884 for Derviş İbrahim Paşa and annexes au N°44, 30.12.1884 for
Mehmed İzzet Paşa and Hüseyin Hüsnü Paşa.
³⁵Dumont, “Les Provinces arabes”, 193.
³⁶e photographs were taken and sold by the court photographer Vasilaki Kargopoulo, who had his studio in
Pera, Place du Tunnel no. 4. On Kargopoulo cf. Bahain Öztuncay, Vasilaki Kargopoulo: Photographer to His
Majesty the Sultan (Istanbul: Eren, 2000). e portrait of Derviş Paşa used by Caffarel can be found in ibid.,
160. A clipping of it is used in Gövsa, Türk Meşhurları, 93. e photo in Malumat 42 is not the same, probably
showing the general at a later date.
³⁷Waldimir Giesl, Zwei Jahrzehnte im Nahen Orient. Aufzeichnungen des Generals der Kavallerie Baron Wladimir
Giesl.Ed. Generalmajor Rier v. Steinitz (Berlin: Verlag ür Kulturpolitik, 1927), 17.
³⁸For its expansion in Anatolia s. Abdurrahman Memiş, Hâlidî Bağdadî ve Anadoluda Hâlidîcilik (Istanbul: Kitabevi,
6
the orthodox brand of ulema Islam and for its pro-Ooman stance, but also for its distinctly
hostile aitude towards non-Muslims.³⁹ e dhikr of the Khalidiyya was not open to public, a
novelty introduced by Shaykh Khālid.⁴⁰ e prayer the shaykh required at the end of the dhikr
runs as follows:
“God protect our master the venerable and dignified Sultan, support him with the
invisible armies and assist him in defending the land of Islam. Grant him capable
offspring to ever follow him for many generations. Award his armies victory on
the land and in the sea and lead aright his ministers, assistants and delegates. Make
them the cause of the upbuilding of the country and the tranquility of the people.
Revive through him and through them the exalted and noble sunna, and elevate
through him and through them the Prophet’s radiant minaret of the shariʿa. Bring
failure upon his enemies, since his enemy is the enemy of the Muslim religion.
[Destroy the Jews, the Christians, the Zoroastrians (majūs) and the Persian Shiʿis
(rawāfiḍ al-aʿājim)]. Devastate the innovating heretics and the accursed Khawārij.
Eradicate them one aer the other and bring security and health to us and to your
servants, the pilgrims, the warriors, those staying in their place and those traveling, those living in your land and your sea among the community of Muḥammad,
God bless and save him and all his family and Companions. Praise be to God, the
lord of the worlds.”⁴¹
We know from the comprehensive autobiography by the Ooman official and dervish Aşçı
İbrahim Dede that Derviş İbrahim Paşa was a close follower of the Khalidi shaykh Erzincanlı
Fehmi Efendi.⁴² We may therefore assume that the political ideas of Derviş Paşa were in tune
2000).
³⁹Cf. Hamid Algar, “A Brief History of the Naqshbandī Order,” in Naqshbandis. Cheminements et situation actuelle
d’un ordre mystique musulman, ed. Marc Gaborieau, Alexandre Popovic and ierry Zarcone (Istanbul: Isis,
1985), 30; Butrus Abu-Manneh, “e Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ooman Lands in the Early 19th
Century,” Die Welt des Islams 22 (1982), 12-17 and Itzchak Weismann, Taste of Modernity. Sufism, Salafiyya, and
Arabism in Late Ooman Damascus (Leiden etc.: Brill, 2001), 45-55.
⁴⁰Called the “closing of the door” (ġalq or iġlāq al-bāb), cf. Weismann, Taste of Modernity, 40.
⁴¹oted here in the translation of Weismann, Taste of Modernity, 52. e sentence in square brackets was le
out in a printed collection of leers from Khālid to his khalifas and adherents edited by Asʿad aṣ-Ṣāḥib (ed.):
Buġyat al-wāǧid ī maktūbāt mawlānā Ḫālid (Damascus 1334), but was found by Butrus Abu-Manneh in the
original manuscript stored in the Süleymaniyye Library in Istanbul. Abu-Manneh identifies the original Arabic
expression translated by Weismann as “destroy” as ahlik (2nd. pers. sg. imp. of stem IV of halaka), which he
chooses to render as “annihilate.” Cf. Abu-Manneh, “e Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya,” 15.
⁴²Marie Luise Bremer, Die Memoiren des türkischen Derwischs Aşçı Dede İbrāhīm (Walldorf-Hessen: Verlag ür Orientkunde, 1959), 36f; Marie Luise van Ess-Bremer, “Fehmī, Sheykh,“ in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman;
. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 2nd ed. (Leiden etc.: Brill, 1964), 2: 878; Carter
Vaughn Findley, Ooman Civil Officialdom. A Social History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1989), 125,
283f. According to Aşçı Dede İbrahim, Fehmi Efendi was born in 1231 (beg. 3 December 1815) and died 30
M 1298 (2 January 1881) during his third pilgrimage to Mecca. He was a khalifa of Abdülvehhab Vehbi ülErzurumi ül-Erzincani (d. 1848), known as Terzi Baba, who was a khalifa of Mevlana Halid; cf. Aşçı İbrahim
Dede, Hatıraları, 332f; Bremer, Memoiren, 237. e memoirs of Aşçı Dede İbrahim contain much detailed information about Fehmi Efendi, who is portrayed from the perspective of a dedicated follower. Fehmi Efendi’s
son, Ahmed Fevzi Efendi (1861-1924), followed his father as postnişin, took part in the congresses of Erzurum
and Sivas and became member of the TBMM for his hometown Erzincan. Cf. http://www.erzincan.net/
index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=826&Itemid=109, (accessed 7 November 2011).
7
with the anti-Christian and anti-European outlook of Shaykh Khālid. Josef Koetschet, the
aforementioned physician of Ömer Lütfi Paşa, who met Derviş Paşa personally but obviously
disliked him, spoke of him as a “known enemy of the Christians” (bekannter Christenfeind).⁴³
Ziya Şakir’s description of Derviş adds an interesting nuance to that picture. While stating
that he tended toward gross superstitious beliefs (kaba ve batıl itikatlara mütemayil) and was
outwardly a fanatic who performed his religious duties with the utmost punctiliousness (hariçte
taassup ve dindarlığın en koyu sofuluklarını gösteren Paşa), Şakir adds that Derviş Paşa enjoyed
looking at the monumental paintings hung in his splendidly decorated konak, which depicted
bale scenes from the wars in which Derviş Paşa had fought.⁴⁴
Having explained what appeared to some contemporary observers as Derviş Paşa’s “fanaticism” and hostility towards Christians with reference to his ideological orientation and adherence to the Khalidiyya-Mujaddidiyya order, we will now show his alleged rapaciousness to be
a depreciatory description of his social conduct in maers of property.⁴⁵
In his Formation of the Modern State, Rifaat Abou-El-Haj made the pointed statement that
corruption in the modern nation-state should not be conflated with practices of appropriation
prevalent in the pre-modern Ooman Empire, where “those members of the ruling class who
were in power appropriated whatever wealth they could, without any sense of corruption or
greed, but rather out of a sense of entitlement. […] e notion that these Ooman practices
are an indication of corruption stems from the modern assumption that the public interest is
separate from the individual interest of the dominant members of the ruling class. […] ere
is, however, a corollary that can best be described as noblesse oblige. Individual grandees commied their individual talents and private wealth (and/or that of their households) to public
service.”⁴⁶
Given the process of modernization and the resulting “cultural bifurcation” (Niyazi Berkes) in
the late Ooman Empire, we can expect a continuum of individual social conduct spanning
between the ideal types of the modern and the traditional.⁴⁷ Caffarel’s description of Derviş
Paşa as rapacious and as a typical representative of the old-style Ooman pasha can be understood in our terms as referring to traditional social behavior. It may be argued that this kind
of traditional social conduct on the part of a member of the Ooman ruling elite had come
⁴³Aus Bosniens letzter Türkenzeit. Hinterlassene Aufzeichnungen von Med. Univ. Dr. Josef Koetschet, ed. Georg
Grassl (Vienna – Leipzig: A. Hartleben, 1905), 1.
⁴⁴Ziya Şakir, Bizi İdare Edenler, 1:189-190.
⁴⁵It should be emphasized that the characterizations “fanaticism” and “rapaciousness” were not necessarily coupled.
us, the famous serasker Namık Paşa, termed a “fanatic” by almost all contemporary European observers,
was usually not regarded as “rapacious.” Cf. Christoph Herzog, “Corruption and the Limits of the State in the
Ooman Province of Baghdad during the 19th Century,” e MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies 3
(Spring 2003), 38.
⁴⁶Rifaat ʿAli Abou-El-Haj, Formation of the Modern State. e Ooman Empire Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries
(New York: State University of New York Press, 1991), 56f.
⁴⁷We are aware of but cannot discuss here a possible pitfall of our argumentation: much of what has been presented
as traditional during the 19th century were in fact “invented traditions.” Additionally, in terms of ideology,
much of what would appear to be “traditional” political thought might be in fact be the conscious outcome of a
conservative reaction to the challenges of modernity.
8
in conflict not only with the political standards of certain European observers, but with the
aspirations of the modernizing Ooman state and its advocates.
e aforementioned Josef Koetschet claimed that Derviş Paşa’s considerable wealth originated
from the embezzlement of financial resources intended for the maintenance of the Ooman
military in Herzegovina, which, according to the physician, amounted in 1861 to approximately
14,000 men. While Koetschet insisted that the pasha was the chief culprit and main beneficiary
of the embezzlement, he indicated that both the purveyors of the army (Pasko Svilokosi in
Dubrovnik and Okulič & Cie. in Mostar) and the majors were involved in these sorts of activities
as well.⁴⁸ Ahmed Muhtar Paşa, too, suggested in the first volume of his memoirs (unpublished
in his lifetime) that Derviş Paşa used funds from the army for his personal enrichment.⁴⁹ Some
support for this can be found in Ahmed Cevdet’s notes, despite the fact that the great historian,
who like Derviş Paşa originated from Lofça, mostly took the side of his fellow countryman. e
trouble in Bosnia had started with a comparatively small insurrection in the Herzegovinian
district of Nevesinje, which then spread and soon spiraled out of control.⁵⁰ Ahmed Cevdet
claimed that the military commanders in Bosnia blamed Derviş İbrahim Paşa’s extortions for
the insurrection – an idea Caffarel cited based on hearsay, as well.⁵¹ According to Cevdet,
Derviş Paşa telegraphed the Porte to ask for military assistance, but the Grand Vizier Hüseyin
Avni Paşa, an enemy of Derviş, ignored his request. When Hüseyin Avni Paşa was deposed as
grand vizier on 25 April 1875, his successor Esad Paşa rejected the advice of Gazi Osman Paşa
(who had been commander of the Ooman forces in Bosnia but was transferred to Anatolia
aer falling out with Derviş Paşa) to remove Derviş Paşa from his post as vali in order to
calm down the insurgents.⁵² Framing the issue somewhat differently, Mahmud Celaleddin Paşa
aributed Esad Paşa’s hesitation to use force against the insurgents to his concern that the
revolt might lead to another international crisis. On the other hand, he refers to “credible
accounts” reporting that Derviş İbrahim Paşa had been at loggerheads with the Grand Vizier
Esad Paşa and did not get on well with the serasker Ali Saib Paşa. Both men refused to send
him the requested troops because, as they declared in the council of ministers, the vali only
wanted the soldiers so that he could pocket the money.⁵³
According to Ziya Şakir, Derviş Paşa’s “weaknesses were riches and fortune (ikbal ve servet).”
⁴⁸Dr. K., Erinnerungen, 154f.
⁴⁹Gazi Ahmed Muhtar Paşa, Anılar. Sergüzeşt-i Hayatım’ın Cild-i Evveli (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1996), 92.
⁵⁰For details on the Bosnian-Herzegovinian revolt of 1875 by contemporary European observers cf. G. Muir
Mackenzie and A. P. Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe, 5th ed. (London: Daldy, Isbister & Co, 1877), 1: 24-53, Arthur J. Evans, rough Bosnia and the Herzegovina on Foot During the Insurrection,
August and September 1875 […], 2nd ed. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1877); James Baker, Turkey in Europe, 2nd ed. (London - Paris - New York: Casell, Peer & Galpin, 1877), 219-223; Koetschet, Aus Bosniens letzter
Türkenzeit. For an Ooman account s. Celaleddin, Mirat-i Hakikat, 1: 43-52.
⁵¹“Il était gouverneur militaire de Bosnie et de l’Herzégovine, lorsque éclata l’insurrection de 1875 à laquelle, dit
on, ses exactions ne furent point étrangères.”
⁵²Cf. Cevdet, Tezâkir, 4 [tezkire no. 40]: 147f and Cevdet, Maʿrûzât, 224. On the background of their conflict s.
Koetschet, Aus Bosniens letzter Türkenzeit, 3f. According to Koetschet, Osman Paşa resented Derviş Paşa’s
dubious financial practices, which he reported to the relevant authorities. At the same time, he demanded he
be transferred to another post, as he was unable to serve under Derviş Paşa.
⁵³Celaleddin, Mirat-i Hakikat, 1:44f.
9
e pasha, he wrote, showed remarkable skill and perseverance in obtaining these.⁵⁴ Caffarel
portrayed Derviş İbrahim as an exceptionally rich man⁵⁵ who owned property in Bulgaria,
Albania and Syria. rough the memoirs of his protégé Aşçı Dede İbrahim we know that
Derviş Paşa’s property in Syria consisted mainly of a çilik in the fertile Beqaa valley in today’s
Lebanon. From 1872 to 1875 Aşçı Dede İbrahim acted as its administrator, but with mixed success. For instance, he lost a court case against a local notable, Abdullah Nablusi, who claimed
a considerable portion of the çilik’s land.⁵⁶ Derviş Paşa would later claim that the financial
loss caused by his administrator amounted to several hundred thousand Kuruş.⁵⁷ According to
Caffarel, another source of the pasha’s wealth consisted of the bribes he received in exchange
for procuring access to the palace for European traders seeking licenses and concessions. It has
also been claimed that Derviş received a portion of the money his protégé Mehmed Faik Paşa
himself extorted while vali of Manastır (1889 – 1895) in return for having lobbied the Sultan
on behalf of Mehmed Faik, whose office had been threatened by the complaints of European
consuls and the Christian inhabitants of the town.⁵⁸
In Istanbul, Derviş Paşa resided in Yüksek Kaldırım in an extraordinarily luxurious konak surrounded by a garden.⁵⁹ He also owned a summer residence in Ortaköy on the Bosphorus, which
had previously been in the possession of the serasker Gürcü Ali Saib Paşa (d. 1891).⁶⁰ In addition, Derviş Paşa may have possessed houses in several of the provincial capitals where he was
sent on duty. For instance, he is known to have bought a house in Damascus in the quarter of
Sūq Ṣārūjā.⁶¹
We do not know how much wealth Derviş Paşa invested in charitable affairs. However, Aşcı
Dede’s memoirs mention two instances in Erzincan in which Derviş Paşa disbursed significant
sums of money for religious buildings. In 1864 he ordered the building of a dervish convent
for the Khalidiyya order. According to Aşçı Dede, the total costs for the commission amounted
to 73,000 Kuruş, of which Derviş Paşa paid 16,000 Kuruş and Shaykh Fehmi 20,000 Kuruş.
e rest of the money seems to have been obtained through donations by Ooman military
officials, bureaucrats and local notables.⁶² e second instance of Derviş Paşa’s public spending
as narrated by Aşçı Dede resulted from a conflict between the pasha and his pir Fehmi Efendi.
According to Aşçı Dede, in 1868 a dervish named Sıddık Hoca addressed the mounting tensions
between Christians and Muslims in Erzincan in a sermon in the city’s great mosque. Some
Christians complained about this to the mutasarrıf Ali Paşa, who, without having investigated
⁵⁴Ziya Şakir, Bizi İdare Edenler, 1:188.
⁵⁵Süreyya in SO, 4: 855 also makes a point of characterizing Derviş İbrahim as a “rich and lucky man” (zî servet ve
sahib-i tecellî).
⁵⁶Aşçı Dede, Hatıraları, 529, 537.
⁵⁷Ibid., 904.
⁵⁸Lory, La ville balkanissime, 435 and 453.
⁵⁹Cf. Ziya Şakir, Bizi İdare Edenler, 1: 189-190.
⁶⁰Aşçı Dede, Hatıraları, 1031, 1287, 1292, 1455. “[…] merhum Serasker Ali Saib Paşa’nın sahilhanesi olup içindeki
eşaysıyla beraber bâ-irâde-i seniyye Derviş Paşa hazretlerine ihsan olunmuş idi,” ibid., 798.
⁶¹Ibid., 538; on the quarter cf. ʿAbd al-Razzaq Moaz: “e Urban Fabric of an Extramural arter in 19th-Century
Damascus,” in e Syrian Land: Processes of Integration and Fragmentation. Bilâd al-Shām from the 18th to the
29th Century, ed. omas Philipp & Birgit Schaebler (Stugart: Franz Steiner, 1998), 165-183.
⁶²Cf. Aşçı Dede, Hatıraları, 477-493.
10
the issue, notified Derviş Paşa. e laer had Sıddık arrested, causing an outcry in the Sunni
community of the town. When the news reached Shaykh Fehmi, he immediately rushed to
Derviş – then commander of the 4th army – and reproached him. Although Derviş Paşa had
Sıddık Hoca released on the spot, Shaykh Fehmi remained unreconciled and retired to the great
mosque for meditation. Derviş Paşa sent Aşçı Dede to mediate but with lile success. In the
end, Derviş Paşa vowed to build a mosque across from the barracks, but was deposed from his
post in Erzincan before it was completed.⁶³ Yet Derviş Paşa’s social commitment must have
gone beyond these two projects related by Aşçı Dede. e same source informs us that the
pasha cleared his protégé’s debts of 10,000 Kuruş – though not, it seems, without expecting
something in return.⁶⁴ In any case, if we trust the information given by Aşçı Dede, we have at
least an indication that the balance of appropriation and donation formulated by Abou-El-Haj
is applicable in the case of Derviş İbrahim Paşa, and that the pasha’s alleged “rapaciousness”
expresses a one-sided and distorted but, if amended, basically correct observation of his social
conduct concerning property.
However, it should be pointed out that while Caffarel’s classification of Derviş as the oldschool Ooman pasha has its merits, it also has its limits. Caffarel claimed that Derviş Paşa
spoke no language other than Turkish. In making this assertion, however, the French military
aaché may have fallen prey to his own preconception of a typical “traditional Turkish Pasha.”⁶⁵
If Derviş was of Pomak origin,⁶⁶ he probably would have known Bulgarian. It is also well
possible that Derviş knew Arabic or even some Persian, as these languages were part of the
traditional Ooman curriculum. Derviş would certainly have had the opportunity to learn
these languages in Lofça, as the city – according to Fatma Aliye – was amongst the Ooman
provincial towns where education facilities were particularly good. Aliye reports that Derviş
İbrahim and Ahmed Midhat aended the same school in Lofça as her father Ahmed Cevdet.
e school seems to have offered both primary and secondary education.⁶⁷ Finally, according
to at least one account – by the Austrian military aaché Wladimir Giesl von Gieslingen –
Derviş Paşa knew enough French to hold a conversation at an official reception.⁶⁸
At the time of Caffarel’s report, Derviş Paşa had only one wife. e couple had two sons,
Ahmed and Halid, then in their twenties and at the beginning of promising military careers.
According to Caffarel, Derviş İbrahim’s two other sons had died in the 1862 campaign in Montenegro. In 1889 Derviş Paşa’s son Halid Ali Paşa (1860-1948)⁶⁹ married Nazime Sultan (18661947), one of the daughters of Sultan Abdülaziz.⁷⁰ Halid Paşa seems to have been affiliated with
⁶³Ibid., 513f.
⁶⁴Ibid., 524f.
⁶⁵Cf. Olivier Bouquet, Les pachas du sultan. Essai sur les agents supérieurs de l’État ooman (1839-1909) (Dudley,
Mass.: Peeters, 2007), 19.
⁶⁶Cf. Lory, La ville balkanissime, 409.
⁶⁷Fatma Aliye, Ahmed Cevdet Paşa ve Zamanı (Istanbul: Kanaat Matbaası, 1332), 9.
⁶⁸Waldimir Giesl, Zwei Jahrzehnte, 116. It should be noted, however, that Giesl’s memoirs are oen unreliable, and
he may well have been mistaken in recollecting such a conversation.
⁶⁹On him cf. Kuneralp, Erkân, 74.
⁷⁰Cf. M. Çağatay Uluçay, Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları, 4th ed. (Ankara: TTK, 2001), 164f and Cevdet Kırpık,
Haremin Son Yüzyıllı. Sultan ve Damatlar (Istanbul: Timaş, 2012), 105, 166. In 1924, Halid Ali and Nazime were
exiled with most of the other members of the dynasty; cf. their names (nos. 172 and 173) in the list given in
11
the Naqshbandiyya shaykh Erbili Muhammed Esad Efendi.⁷¹
In his discussion of the 1862 Montenegro campaign, Caffarel accuses Derviş Paşa of having
shown extraordinary cruelty towards the local population, including brutally executing two
hundred prisoners, burning down villages, cuing down fruit trees and destroying harvests.
Indeed, most of this was common practice at the time. A systematic scorched earth policy
was applied by the Ooman troops during the Montenegrin war. In his telegram to the Porte,
rendered in Cevdet’s Tezâkir, Ömer Lütfi Paşa informed the authorities in Istanbul that the
armies of both Derviş and Abdi Paşa had destroyed and burned all the villages in Montenegro
that were within their reach.⁷² is is confirmed by Koetschet, who noted that Ooman troops
had completely and systematically ruined the densely populated and fertile Bjelopavlići plain
(the Zeta valley) in the way indicated by Caffarel. Koetschet adds that this was a “bloody war
without prisoners” – presumably on both sides.
It would appear that Caffarel’s information – received directly or via informants – was at the
same time highly accurate and inaccurate. While his chronology of the pasha’s career appears
heavily flawed and grossly unreliable, his characterization of the man contains statements that
can be substantiated by cross-referencing other sources as well as valuable information not
found elsewhere.
On the Characterization of Derviş Paşa by Aşçı Dede İbrahim
As has been mentioned above, the memoirs of Aşçı Dede İbrahim constitute an invaluable
source for the biography of Derviş Paşa. It should be noted, however, that they are no less
problematic than the report of the French military aaché, albeit for different reasons.⁷³ Carter
Findley, who has analyzed the patronage relationship (intisab) between Aşçı Dede and Derviş
Paşa,⁷⁴ spoke of İbrahim’s world – using Michael Gilsenan’s expression – as a “tangled magic
garden.”⁷⁵ While this is certainly the overall impression a modern reader will gain from Aşçı
Oğuz Aytepe, “Yeni Belgelerin Işığında Halifeliğin Kaldırılması ve Hanedan Üyelerin Yurtdışına Çıkarılmaları,”
Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Mayıs-Kasım 2002,15-29, here 28. According to Ömer Faruk Yılmaz, “Babamın Katledişini Gördüm,” Yedikıta Dergisi 38 (Ekim 2011), 18-31, Nazime
died in Juniyah near Beirut in 1947.
⁷¹Osmânzâde Hüseyin Vassâf, Sefîne-i Evliyâ, ed. Mehmet Akkuş, Ali Yılmaz. 5 vols. (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2006),
2:348.
⁷²Cevdet, Tezâkir [tezkire no. 19], 2:252: “Derviş Paşa bir taraan ve Abdi Paşa bir taraan tekmil Karadağ köyleri
yakılıp yıkılmıştır.”
⁷³His memoirs have been analyzed by Bremer, Memoiren and Findley, Civil Officialdom, 179-187. For more reflections on Aşçı Dede and his memoirs cf. the articles by Richard Wimann, “Französische Hemden, österreichische Dampfschiffe und deutsche Lokomotiven: Fremde Dinge in der Selbstverortung des islamischen Mystikers
Aşçı Dede İbrahim,” in Selbstzeugnis und Person. Transkulturelle Perspektiven, ed. H. Medick, A. Schaser and C.
Ulbrich (Cologne – Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 2012) and id., “’Fine feathers make fine birds’: Aşçı Dede İbrahim
and his ‘chemise à la mode française,” in Fashioning the Self in Transcultural Seings: e Uses and Significance
of Dress in Self-Narratives, ed. Richard Wimann and Claudia Ulbrich (Würzburg: Ergon, 2012).
⁷⁴Findley, Civil Officialdom, 282-290.
⁷⁵Ibid., 179 and id., “Social Dimensions of Dervish Life as Seen in the Memoirs of Aşçı Dede İbrahim Halil,” in
e Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ooman Turkey, ed. Raymond Lifchez (Berkeley: Univ. of
12
Dede’s memoirs, they also contain considerable local knowledge and details on daily life that
have lile or nothing to do with the mystical or magical dimensions of his thought. ough
Aşçı Dede’s narrative does not provide a biographical sketch or straightforward characterization of Derviş as such, his frequent mentions of the man offer a perspective on him that has
rarely been recorded and that has completely escaped the aention of almost all European observers like Caffarel. Aşcı Dede declared explicitly and unequivocally that he did not intend to
offer a biographical sketch of Derviş Paşa in his account of a conversation the two had shortly
before the pasha’s death. When Aşcı Dede asked whether he might take down some notes on
the pasha’s life,
“e deceased pasha answered: ‘My son, I have been involved in many activities,
always to please God. What need is there to compile them and sell them to the
people? What is done for God remains best hidden and kept for Him.’” Aşçı Dede
comments, “at is so. is miserable sinner [speaking of himself (C.H.)] knows
most of the things the deceased pasha has done for God. Again, it shall be kept
hidden in the breast of Aşçı Dede […].”⁷⁶
Faced with this declaration, there is lile point in theorizing about Aşçı Dede’s alleged failure
in painting a coherent picture of his benefactor. ere is no such coherent narrative, and
not only was there no intention to deliver one, but there was a clear commitment to refrain
from doing so out of respect for the request of the deceased. Nevertheless, we may still use
Aşçı Dede’s memoirs as a historical source for Derviş Paşa’s life. In his memoirs, Aşçı Dede
shows confidence that Derviş Paşa will enter paradise. He also maintains that in addition to
tuberculosis, it was what he perceived as Armenian treason and mutiny that so weakened the
pasha at the end of his life. Aşçı Dede validates these feelings of hatred when he compares the
pasha to a chained lion, derided and taunted by rats until he becomes furious. “is,” he writes,
“was the deceased pasha’s state of mind. He was so infuriated by this millet that if he had been
able to, he would have torn the Armenian millet by the root and removed them from this soil
(Ermeni milletinin kökü bu zeminden kaldırır idi).”⁷⁷ He adds, quoting Fehmi Efendi, that the
deceased pasha was not loved by many because he was a friend of the friends of Islam and an
enemy of the enemy of this religion and that he was also “the greatest enemy of those who were
religious hypocrites and desired to remove them from this earth (münâfikîn zümresine adüvv-i
ekber olup bunların vücutlarını dünyadan kaldırmak ister idi).”⁷⁸ is rather militant strain of
Derviş Paşa’s belief is also reflected in the fact that, according to Aşçı Dede, Derviş Paşa named
his eldest son Halid aer Khālid ibn Walīd, who was not only one of the Prophet’s companions
but also one of the most famous and successful of the early Islamic generals. Derviş Paşa had
prayed for a son at Khālid’s tomb, vowing that he would name him aer the general.⁷⁹ On the
advice of Shaykh Fehmi Efendi, Derviş’s son Halid was educated at home rather than at school,
allowing him to focus on religious instruction until he was about twenty years old.⁸⁰ Aşçı Dede
California Press, 1992), 175.
⁷⁶Aşçı Dede, Hatıraları, 915.
⁷⁷Ibid., 914.
⁷⁸Ibid.
⁷⁹Ibid., 915f.
⁸⁰Ibid., 916.
13
sums up the successful career of Derviş Paşa in his account of a dream the laer once related
to him. In his dream, Derviş was in the building of the Bab-i Ali together with Fuad Paşa and a
girl, whom the dreamer surmised to be Fuad’s daughter. Fuad Paşa demanded that she kiss the
hem of Derviş’s garments, which she did only aer he had repeated the order several times.
Aşçı Dede offered the interpretation that Derviş would once reach the supreme position now
held by Fuad and adds – from the perspective of hindsight – that twenty years later Derviş in
fact did achieve such a relationship with the Sultan, who never refuted his wishes or rejected
his advice.⁸¹ It should be remarked, however, that in contrast to Fuad, Derviş Paşa was never
entrusted with the position of Grand Vizier. Even if he had been, given the changes in the
workings of the Ooman political system under Abdülhamid, it would not have meant the
same thing.
Appendix: Transcript of Ernest Caffarel’s Report on Derviş Paşa
Ambassade de France près de la Porte Oomane
Service de l’aaché militaire
annexe au rapport n° 32⁸²
Dervich pacha,
Muchir, aide de camp général de S.M. le Sultan, membre de la Commission d’Inspection et de
réorganisation de l’armée.
Dervich pacha est né en 1819, à Locha en Bulgarie; il a aujourd’hui 65 ans.
Il entra en 1836, comme sous officier, (chaouch du palais) dans l’armée oomane et, sans avoir
jamais suivi les cours d’aucune école militaire, il obtint un avancement si rapide, que, en 1862,
ayant à peine 26 ans de services et 43 ans d’âge, il était nommé Muchir (maréchal).
Presque au début de sa carrière, Dervich eut la bonne fortune d’être distingué par Omer pacha,
qui fit de lui son aide de camp et le protégea très activement par la suite.
En 1852, il accompagne son général, dans une première campagne contre le Monténégro.
Déjà colonel et commandant d’un régiment d’infanterie, il reste inactif, à Eupatoria, pendant
toute la guerre de Crimée.
En 1861, sous les ordres d’Omer pacha, il prend part à une nouvelle campagne contre les Monténégrins.
L’année suivante il est nommé férik et il reçoit le commandement d’un des trois corps d’armée,
qui devaient envahir à la fois ce malheureux pays. Les deux autres corps avaient pour chefs
Abdi pacha et Husseïn Avni pacha. Dervich se montra bien supérieur à ses deux collègues. Par
⁸¹Ibid., 905.
⁸²Service historique de l’armée de terre (SHAT): 7N 1628, aachés mililtaires, Turquie 1882-1884, annexe au No.
32 (26 August 1884), Caffarel.
14
une habile manœuvre il tourne les défilés de Duga, pénêtre sous Ostrog, bat les Monténégrins
à Golia et à Ara (?) Louka et les oblige à la retraite.
Pensant les réduire par la terreur, il fait empaler 200 prisonniers, il fait incendier les villages,
bruler les moissons, et couper les arbres fruitiers; mais sa cruauté ne sert qu’à surexciter le
patriotisme de ses adversaires.
Bau à son tour, deux fois de suite, il est obligé de se replier vers la Moratscha.
Bientôt après les Turcs, reprenant l’offensive, écrasaient à Riéka la petite armée de Mirko, et
menaçaient Tseinje. On sait que l’intervention de l’Autriche mit fin à la guerre.
Dervich rapporta de cee campagne le grade de Muchir; il y perdit deux fils, qui restèrent sur
le champ de bataille.
Nommé commandant du 5e corps en Syrie, il quie Damas, au bout de 2 ans, pour aller réprimer
un soulèvement, qui avait éclaté sur le plateau de Kozandagh, dans la province de Dersin (Anatolie).
Il commande ensuite successivement le 4e, le 2e et le 6e corps d’armée.
En 1872, il fut, pendant 6 mois, Ministre de la Guerre.
Il était gouverneur militaire de la Bosnie et de l’Herzégovine, lorsque éclata l’insurrection de
1875 à laquelle, dit-on, ses exactions ne furent point étrangères. Il demandait à prendre des
mesures de vigueur cruellement énergique, qui l’auraient peut-être étouffée, dès le principe.
Le grand vézir Mahmud Neddim pacha (surnommé Mahmoudoff à cause de ses tendances
Moscovites), ne voulut pas y consentir et le remplaça immédiatement par Moukhtar pacha.
Lors du dernier conflit Turco Russe, Dervich pacha était à la tête du 3e corps d’armée, à Monastir. On l’envoya commander l’aile gauche de l’armée, sur la frontière du Caucase.
Il ne se montra pas, cee fois, à la hauteur de sa réputation. Au lieu de tenir la campagne,
ou de céder à Moukhtar pacha, qui supportait à lui seul tout l’effort des Russes, une partie de
ses troupes, il s’enferma dans Batoum avec 45 bataillons, et passa toute la durée de la guerre à
livrer, troupes d’investissement, des escarmouches insignifiantes, que ses rapports mensongers
transformaient en autant de batailles rangées.
Après la campagne, il resta à Erzinghian, commandant du IVe corps d’armée; il revient ensuite
à Constantinople, remplir les fonctions de chef d’Etat Major général du Ministre de la Guerre,
et prendre, un peu plus tard, les commandement du 1er corps d’armée.
Dervich, ayant commandé les 6 premiers corps d’armée, connait ainsi toutes les provinces de
l’Empire, sauf le Yémen.
Autre les commandements que je viens d’indiquer, Dervich a eu à remplir de hautes missions
politiques et militaires.
Pendant l’année 1880, il fut envoyé en Albanie, avec le titre de Serdar Ekrem (généralissime) de
toutes les troupes oomanes d’Europe, pour remere Dulcigno aux Monténégrins et désarmer
15
les ligues Albanaises, que le gouvernement central avait organisées, lui même, contre l’Autriche
et contre la Grèce.
Aussitôt après la remise de la ville, il partit pour l’Albanie du Nord, où Méhement Ali pacha
venait d’être assassiné, bait les Arnaoutes, à Ipek et à Djakova, et pacifia la province.
Il réussit dans cee mission, sinon sans effusion de sang, tout au moins d’une manière complète.
Il fut moins heureux dans celle qu’il remplit, en Egypte, pendant le cours de l’année 1882. Parti
avec l’intention hautement avouée de raffermir l’autorité ébranlée du vice-roi, de décider Arabi
à se soumere et peut-être aussi de raacher l’Egypte à Constantinople; il revint brusquement
sans avoir rien obtenu. Il avait pourtant noué des relations cordiales avec Arabi, aussi bien
qu’avec le Khédive, on a le droit d’aribuer son insuccès, à l’indécision de la Sublime Porte, et
au manque d’instructions précises.
En qualité de membre de la Commission de réorganisation de l’armée, il a pris, l’année dernière,
une part très active à l’élaboration des projets de réforme.
A l’inverse de Moukhtar pacha, dont la biographie sommaire était jointe au rapport n°29, Dervich appartient complètement à l’ancienne école oomane. C’est le type du général vieux Turc,
fanatique, rapace, fourbe et cruel, pour qui tous les moyens sont bons et qui n’a recours à la
force des armes, qu’après avoir épuisé la ruse, le mensonge et la trahison.
Lors de sa mission en Albanie, il y avait à Scutari deux personnages qui le gênaient, un prince
Mirdite (parfaitement insignifiant du reste) Bib Doda, et un Albanais très populaire, Hodo
pacha. N’osant pas les faire arrêter dans la ville, où ils comptaient de nombreux partisans,
il leur propose une promenade à cheval, sous prétexte d’inspecter les travaux d’une route, qu’il
faisait ouvrir dans la direction de St. Jean de Medua et il les entraîne à quelque distance. Une
tente était dressée sur le chantier, on y déjeune avec les apparences de la plus franche cordialité; mais après le café, Dervich annonce à ses deux convives qu’ils sont prisonniers et il les
expédie, sous bonne escorte, séance tenante, à St. Jean de Medua, où un vapeur aendait pour
les transporter à Constantinople.
Dervich est sans pitié pour ses adversaires, même vaincus; en revanche il sait rédiger très
habilement ses bulletins de victoire et enfler à merveille les moindres succès.
Il s’entend aussi, mieux que pas un vieux Turc, à couronner sa tête d’une auréole de dévotion
qui lui vaut toute la sympathie du souverain, en même temps qu’elle lui assure le respect et la
confiance des troupes.
Il prend du reste un soin extrême de sa popularité. Les soldats ont partout, et en tout temps, libre
accès auprès de lui; le beau parc qui environne son Konak à Stamboul est un lieu de promenade
ouvert indistinctement à tous les militaires. En campagne, (après ses repas, bien entendu,) il
appelle le soldat qui passe devant sa tente et il l’invite à partager, avec lui, un biscuit de mer et
une tasse de café, en affectant de n’avoir que la nourriture de la troupe.
Il n’y a qu’une voix sur son compte: C’est un vieux renard. Dervich est dévoré d’une cupidité
insatiable. Elevé à l’école d’Omar pacha qui pillait, pour son propre compte, les provinces conquises, il a exploité sans pudeur toutes les occasions de s’enrichir: Commandements militaires,
16
campagnes, missions politiques, tout a été pour lui matière à profit. Il a de nombreuses propriétés en Bulgarie, en Albanie, en Syrie; il possède à Stamboul (quartier Yuksek Caldérim, Ak.
Séraï) un parc immense et un très beau Konak; où mille objets précieux rappellent au visiteur
les malheureuses provinces, à travers lesquelles le propriétaire à promené sa ruineuse autorité.
oique très riche aujourd’hui, Dervich pacha ne dédaigne pas les petits bénéfices. Les industriels qui désirent obtenir du Sultan, une concession ou une faveur quelconque, sont assurés
d’avance de trouver en lui, un appui bienveillant, et toujours intéressé.
Lorsque après la signature du traité de Berlin, Dervich dût faire, aux Russes, la remise de Batoum, les troupes, secrètement encouragés par le gouvernement, faisaient mine de s’opposer
par la force à cee remise.
Pour pouvoir entrer dans la place sans effusion de sang et y trouver toutes choses en bon ordre,
le Général Boris Mélikoff fit tenir à Dervich une somme de 50 000 roubles (200 000 F) et une
fois l’opération terminée, à la satisfaction complète des Russes, le Czar lui envoya la plaque en
brillants de l’ordre de St. Alexandre Nevsky – les pierreries valaient 5 000 roubles (20 000 F).84
Si Dervich a tous les défauts des généraux vieux Turcs ses collègues, on doit reconnaitre qu’il
s’élève notablement au dessus d’eux par certains cotés de son caractère. Lucidité parfaite,
extrême finesse, énergie soutenue, aptitude au commandement, expérience consommée des
choses de la guerre, dévouement sans bornes aux intérêts de son pays et aux volontés du Sultan,
voilà les qualités, auxquelles il doit la haute situation qu’il occupe. Elles lui assurent une très
grande influence dans les conseils du souverain.
ant à ses soldats, Dervich en obtient tout ce qu’il veut; il a réussi, chose invraisemblable, à
les faire combare, à Dulcigno, à Ipek et à Djakova contre leurs coréligionnaires Musulmans,
pour la cause des Chrétiens du Monténégro.
Sa santé, qui est encore très robuste, fait prevoir pour lui une dizaine d’années d’activité.
Son train de maison est très luxueux. Il n’a qu’une femme et il lui reste deux fils. L’ainé, Ahmed,
âgé de 28 ans, est colonel de cavalerie; le second, Haled, âgé de 20 ans, lieutenant à l’école des
princes Impériaux à Yildiz, passe pour un des plus habiles et des plus brillants écuyers de la
Turquie.
Dervich possède les décorations ci après:
ordres oomans: Médaille du Nichan Imtyaz Grand croix de l’ordre de Médjidié - id. - de
l’Osmanié
Plus un grand nombre de médailles commémoratives de campagne
ordres étrangers: 1870 Grand croix de l’ordre de la Couronne de fer 1872 – id. – de Léopold,
Autriche 1879 – id. – de St. Alexandre Nevsky
Dervich pacha ne parle que le Turc.
Péra 26 août 1884,
E. Caffarel
17
Bibliography
Archival sources
BOA: A.MKT.MHM 293/1, 11 N 1280
BOA: İ.DH 227/13619, 05 Ra 1267
BOA: İ.DH 723/50426, 02 Ca 1293
BOA: İ.MMS 27/1177, 18 S 1280
SHAT: 7N 1628, aachés militaires, Turquie 1882-1884, annexe au no. 32 (26 August 1884),
Caffarel.
Printed Literature
Abou-El-Haj, Rifaat ʿAli, Formation of the Modern State. e Ooman Empire Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries (New York: State University of New York Press, 1991).
Abu-Manneh, Butrus, “e Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya in the Ooman Lands in the Early
19th Century,” Die Welt des Islams 22 (1982): 12-17.
Alderson, Anthony D., Osmanlı hanedanının yapısı (Istanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 1998 [1956]).
Algar, Hamid, “A Brief History of the Naqshbandī Order,” in Naqshbandis. Cheminements et
situation actuelle d’un ordre mystique musulman, ed. Marc Gaborieau, Alexandre Popovic and
ierry Zarcone (Istanbul: Isis, 1985), 3-44.
Aliye, Fatma, Ahmed Cevdet Paşa ve Zamanı (Istanbul: Kanaat Matbaası, 1332).
Allen, William A.D. and Paul Muratoff, Caucasian Balefields. A History of the Wars on the
Turco-Caucasian Border 1828-1921 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1953).
Aşçı İbrahim Dede, Çok Yönlü Bir Sufinin Gözüyle Son Dönem Osmanlı Hayatı. Aşçı Dede’nin
Hatıraları. Ed. Mustafa Koç and Eyyüp Tanrıverdi. 4 vols. (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2006).
Oğuz Aytepe, “Yeni Belgelerin Işığında Halifeliğin Kaldırılması ve Hanedan Üyelerin Yurtdışına
Çıkarılmaları,” Ankara Üniversitesi Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, MayısKasım 2002,15-29.
Baker, James, Turkey in Europe, 2nd ed. (London - Paris - New York: Casell, Peer & Galpin,
1877).
Bayrak, Orhan M., İstanbul’da Gömülü Meşhur Adamları (Istanbul: Türkiye Anıtlar Derneği,
1979).
Bouquet, Olivier, Les pachas du sultan. Essai sur les agents supérieurs de l’État ooman (18391909) (Dudley, Mass.: Peeters, 2007).
18
Bremer, Marie Luise, Die Memoiren des türkischen Derwischs Aşçı Dede İbrāhīm (WalldorfHessen: Verlag ür Orientkunde, 1959).
Celaleddin, Mahmud, Mirat-i Hakikat, 3 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i osmaniyye, 1326-1327).
Çelik, Akif Bilge, “Fırka-yi Islâhiye” Yüksek Lisans Tezi (Kahraman Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi,
2008).
Cevdet Paşa, Ahmed, Tezâkir. Ed. Cavid Baysun (Ankara: TTK, 1991).
idem, Maʿrûzât. Ed. Yusuf Halaçoğlu. (Istanbul: Çağrı, 1980).
Deringil, Selim, “e Ooman Response to the Egyptian Crisis of 1881-82,” Middle Eastern Studies 24.1 (Jan. 1988): 3-24.
Dumont, Paul, “Les Provinces arabes de l’empire Ooman sous le règne d’Abdulhamid II vues
par les aachés militaires français,“ in La vie économique des provinces arabes et leurs sources
documentaires à l’époque oomane (Paris: CNRS, 1986): 177-202.
Ergin, Osman Nuri, İstanbul Şehreminleri (Istanbul: Istanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi Kültür İşleri
Daire Başkanlığı, 1996).
Ess-Bremer, Marie Luise van, “Fehmī, Sheykh,“ in Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman; .
Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 2nd ed. (Leiden etc.: Brill, 1964),
2: 878.
Evans, Arthur J., rough Bosnia and the Herzegovina on Foot During the Insurrection, August
and September 1875 […] 2nd ed. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1877).
Findley, Carter V., Ooman Civil Officialdom. A Social History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press, 1989).
idem, “Social Dimensions of Dervish Life as Seen in the Memoirs of Aşçı Dede İbrahim Halil,”
in e Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ooman Turkey, ed. Raymond Lifchez
(Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1992): 175-186.
Giesl, Waldimir, Zwei Jahrzehnte im Nahen Orient. Aufzeichnungen des Generals der Kavallerie
Baron Wladimir Giesl. Ed. Generalmajor Rier v. Steinitz (Berlin: Verlag ür Kulturpolitik,
1927).
Gövsa, İbrahim Alâein, Türk Meşhurları Ansiklopedisi. Edebiyaa, Sanaa, İlimde, Harpte,
Politikada ve Her Sahada Şöhret Kazanmış Olan Türklerin Hayatları, Eserleri (Istanbul: Yedigün
Neşriyatı, n.d.).
Herzog, Christoph, “Corruption and the Limits of the State in the Ooman Province of Baghdad
during the 19th Century,” e MIT Electronic Journal of Middle East Studies 3 (Spring 2003): 3643.
Kırpık, Cevdet: Haremin Son Yüzyıllı. Sultanlar ve Damatlar. Istanbul: Timaş, 2012.
Kuneralp, Sinan, Son Dönem Osmanlı Erkân ve Ricali (1839–1922) (Istanbul: Isis, 1999).
19
Lütfi, Ahmed, Tarih-i Lütfi. 8 vols. (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Amire, [1-4], Mahmud Bey [5-7], Sabah
[8], 1290-1328).
Dr. K. [Josef Koetschet], Erinnerungen aus dem Leben des Serdar Ekrem Ömer Pascha (Michael
Laas) (Sarajevo: Spindler & Löschner, 1885).
idem, Aus Bosniens letzter Türkenzeit. Hinterlassene Aufzeichnungen von Med. Univ. Dr. Josef
Koetschet. Ed. Georg Grassl (Vienna – Leipzig: A. Hartleben, 1905).
Lory, Bernard, La ville balkanissime. Bitola 1800-1918 (Istanbul: Isis, 2011).
Malumat 42 (13 Haziran 1312 / 14 Muharrem 1314): 932.
Memiş, Abdurrahman, Hâlidî Bağdadî ve Anadoluda Hâlidîcilik (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2000).
Moaz, ʿAbd al-Razzaq, “e Urban Fabric of an Extramural arter in 19th-Century Damascus,”
in e Syrian Land: Processes of Integration and Fragmentation. Bilâd al-Shām from the 18th to
the 19th Century, ed. omas Philipp and Birgit Schaebler (Stugart: Franz Steiner, 1998):
165-183.
Muhtar Paşa, Gazi Ahmed, Anılar. Sergüzeşt-i Hayatım’ın Cild-i Evveli (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı,
1996).
Muir Mackenzie, G. and A. P. Irby, Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe, 5th ed.
(London: Daldy, Isbister & Co, 1877).
Öztuncay, Bahain, Vasilaki Kargopoulo: Photographer to His Majesty the Sultan (Istanbul: Eren,
2000).
Süreyya, Mehmed, Sicill-i Osmani yahud Tezkere-i Meşahir-i Osmaniyye. 4 vols. (Istanbul:
Matbaa-i amire, 1308-1311).
Şakir, Ziya: Yarım Asır Evvel Bizi İdare Edenler. 2 Vols. Istanbul: Muallim Fuat Gücüyener,
Anadolu Türk Kitap Deposu, 1943.
Şam, Emine Altunay, “Derviş Paşa’nın Bosna-Hersek Vilayetinde Yapılan Askeri Düzenlemeye
İlişkin Babıâlî’ye Sunduğu Layiha,” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları 150 (Haziran 2004): 49-60.
Tekindağ, M. C. Şihabein, “Derviş Paşa,“ in İslam Ansiklopedisi (İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi,
1963), 3:552.
idem, “Dervish Pasha,“ in Encyclopaedia of Islam, ed. P. Bearman; . Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth;
E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 2nd ed. (Leiden etc.: Brill, 1969), 3:992.
Uluçay, M. Çağatay, Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları, 4th ed. (Ankara: TTK, 2001).
Vassâf, Osmânzâde Hüseyin, Sefîne-i Evliyâ. Ed. Mehmet Akkuş and Ali Yılmaz, 5 vols. (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2006).
Wallach, Jehuda L., Anatomie einer Militärhilfe (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1976).
Wimann, Richard, “Französische Hemden, österreichische Dampfschiffe und deutsche Lokomotiven: Fremde Dinge in der Selbstverortung des islamischen Mystikers Aşçı Dede İbrahim,”
20
in Selbstzeugnis und Person. Transkulturelle Perspektiven, ed. H. Medick, A. Schaser and C.
Ulbrich (Cologne – Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 2012).
idem, “’Fine feathers make fine birds’: Aşçı Dede İbrahim and his ‘chemise à la mode française,”
in Fashioning the Self in Transcultural Seings: e Uses and Significance of Dress in Self-Narratives,
ed. Richard Wimann and Claudia Ulbrich (Würzburg: Ergon, 2012).
Weismann, Itzchak, Taste of Modernity. Sufism, Salafiyya, and Arabism in Late Ooman Damascus (Leiden etc.: Brill, 2001).
Yılmaz, Ömer Faruk, “Babamın Katledişini Gördüm,” Yedikıta Dergisi 38 (Ekim 2011): 18-31.
21